In message , at 18:17:57 on
Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Zen83237 remarked:
I wonder why their auditors don't make a point of examining all
multiple claims for the same person, above some reasonable
threshold (a couple of dozen a year, perhaps).

You would hope they are doing, after the first high profile fraud
revealed (in the courts) a few weeks ago. Presumably these cases
take quite a few months to come to trial?

So they would audit everybody claiming over about £50 a year.

Not £50, people making large numbers of claims. They have the figures, so
perhaps just the 1% of "top claimants".

And how much does each audit cost.

All it involves is getting a list of names, addresses and claims, sorted
by the number of claims. Then skim off the top (say) 1%.

Hardly cost effective, why not spend the money stopping the bloody delys
in the first place.

Surely you can agree that having a close look at anyone claiming more than
365 times a year would be a good thing?

But making 365 claims a year would be in excess of £1000, not what was
suggested.

My point was that auditing all claims over £50 might be a bit
over-zealous. Better would be the "top 1%" [by volume], or some other
percentage.
--
Roland Perry